I don’t know, presumably a reviewer does sit and listen through the entire length of every track, so there’s no reason they couldn’t write some very simple bullet points as they listen. It wouldn’t take any extra time at all.
Self-improvement for authors, feedback! -Technical reject, -Arrangement reject ... Stop War! Lufs ON!
You might be right: Something like a checklist indicating the main problems could be doable, I guess (and certainly better than the very generic and almost useless automatic form in use at the moment).
I think the Forum can provide such feedback functionality. There are alot of posts people started about «Hard reject! Tell me what’s wrong», and they are usually get answered (at least on AJ). The reason for reject is usually either low overall production quality (wich means it can be found by simply A/B top-seller and rejected track), or non-commercial (non-stock) music (wich means again that the autor should dig deeper in the market to understand it’s nature and trends). Maybe it would be nice if the reviewer could give a hint, for example “Production quality”, “Commercial standards”, “Too simple\pastiche”. When I get hard reject (rarely) I sit, listen to my track and draw concusions why it was rejected, but usually I know why (non-commercial!).
In theory sounds great… but i’m willing to bet a great percentage of the tracks they only need to listen to 10-15 seconds (or less) before they press the big red button. I’m basing this opinion on the absolute junk i submitted when I first started
That’s what I think too. I can only imagine what stuff from hell they have to listen to. Also, I don’t think it’s their job to educate people. That energy and focus are better invested in keeping quality at a high level.
I don’t know how a reviewer is asked to accept/soft reject a track, but I guess there is a form to fill somehwere.
I suggest that there could be a check box or radio button added to the “rejected” button, and they could choose either “mixing/mastering” or “other”.
At least we would know if we have to work on the mixing… or if the composition or anything else is involved.
I have seen that we are many to ask this question: should I improve my mixing, clarity, separation, lack of brightness, definition… or is it simply that my composition is not worth it…
Just one choice: mixing issue / other… it would already immensely help!
I experienced a rejection… someone here (he was the only one, thanks to him!) told me that he had the feeling he was listening to a 96kbps mp3… then I realized my mix was muffled. I fixed it… and this time my track was approved!
Androlex I listened to some of your works, and I can say that they are very good. I really liked it. That’s just a small portfolio.
As for the topic
A similar thought.
Thank you very much for the answers guys! Your opinion is very important to me! what I realized is that every failure is a challenge to make your work even better, change yourself, reach a new peak in your skill! But when I’m given a hard reject, I go through dozens of possible options in my head, literally rewriting the item from a new sheet, and the reason for the refusal could be excessive clipping due to Loudness war, or too compressed … so trivial, just two lines to write it is it so difficult for the reviewer?
Many years ago reviewers used to spend time giving good advices on how to improve the track so it would get approved after next subbmiting if was properly solved.
Once AJ went so popular these reasons are not given any more in favour of a faster queue for review. I really encorauge you to post your rejected tracks on the forum and you will be given good tips on how to health those rejected songs
For instance I remember for this item
the reviewer soft rejected it so he told me to make simpler flute lines because he said the flute ,elody was too busy. These days i could picture the same situation in a hard reject issue without any north to orientate myself
There are a lot of videos and forums on the Internet (in any language) where they discuss the reasons for the failure of AudioJangle. The author is too lazy to investigate this and not make mistakes in his tracks. He wants to shift this work to reviewers and deprive other authors of the opportunity to move quickly in the queue for the sale of tracks.
I am absolutely against these proposals! It’s blind selfishness and laziness. Turn on the brain and you will be clear why your track is rejected. It is very bad (to be lazy) and unpromising …
I was rejected by more than ten tracks, in the first months of my sales and, every time I realized why it was rejected. This taught me very quickly and my tracks were not rejected anymore. Because I was studying!
I do not want to go on personal insults! before writing about laziness, selfishness and hopelessness, you need at least to find out what kind of work the person is doing … what a person has inside, with such words he expresses himself!
I did not mean that. Of course, I wrote about what I was - but I could change it. I’m about beginning authors, not about you. I think that it will be useful for them to strain the brain, and not to hope to earn a lot of money with little effort. (*I myself wrote music and I know how long and difficult it is. Many of my tracks were rejected without explanation. But, I think this is correct).
This site is commercial. This is a business, not a “college for young geniuses.”
Sound sux anyway
That might be true for full songs. But for idents that are only 10 seconds long or even for sound effects with only 3 seconds this would take extra time. I’d prefer helpful feedback too, but I also want my items to be processed in time.
For me the best way of correcting rejected item would be a really few words written by controler. In any audio or visual form may be very difficult to know the reason. It is often subjective. My works were also rejected: Rejected video and I still do not know the reason:)
I do not think that the proposer is selfish, but it is BIG loss of the community to increase the burden of the reviewers.
I thought whether there is a way for the reviewer to give appropriate hints to the rejected author while keeping the review queue at the proper length.
How about allowing reviewers to prepare options that can be clicked on in advance so that reviewers can easily present hints to authors?
This Track was rejected because it corresponds to “Minimize sudden shifts or pauses” of “Music General Acceptance and Sales Tips For Musicians by Musicians”.
If the author gets such hints, may not the reviewer’s burden increase while helping an inexperienced authors?
This was exactly my suggestion! And I would like only two options, to simplify reviewer’s task:
“mixing/mastering” and “other”.
I was once rejected because of lack of clarity in my mix… but I did not know it, so people told me that maybe it was because of my drum fills, or my bass, or the style… One guy thought found the mix was a bit muffled… and well he was right!!
In order for the reviewer to click on the reason for reject and to give hints to the author, the system needs renovation.
If it is refurbished, the author gets hints and claims are reduced, but since there is no benefit to the whole Envato commuity, investment may not be done.
When a track that brought lots of profits to me at Japanese audiostock was rejected, I was shocked, but understood that the quality standards are different.
Even without explanation of the reason, many many authors have passed the review and can post. In short, ”not giving reject reason” itself may function as a quality gate control.
Such gate is called “climbing dragon gate” in Japanese.
A ”carp” that climbed a fast waterfall without help can metamorphose to ”dragon” and succeed.
Dear @Androlex, I am also a newcomer. let’s learn hard together.
One word about the rejection’s reason would be a “one giant leap for mankind”